ing, who seems to have done something towards a religious reformation (2 Καὶ 18*). But there was always a strong party which resented reform, and on Hezekiah’s death it improved its opportunity by capturing his successor. All the superstitious cults and practices of the time of Ahaz came back, and were established with the royal sanction (2 K 218), But they did not come back alone. The most important feature of M.’s reign is its religious i Sapte the blending of foreign worships with the popular religion of Israel. Especially signifi- cant is the worship of the host of heaven (y.°), which shows the influence of Assyria and Babylon. The Baal and Asherah cults were probably revivals of old Can. worship. Mention is also made of dealings with familiar spirits and wizards (v.°). It is not unlikely that we should connect with this the shedding of innocent blood (v.!8), with which the king is also charged. This points to a systematic religious persecution. The time was, accordingly, one of religious reaction—not of re- action only, however, but of syncretism, of gloomy superstition and cruel fanaticism. Out of it sprang, according to the teaching of the prophets (2 K 23%. 27 242-4) the destruction of Jerus. and the Exile, which even the piety of Josiah and the Deuteronomic Reformation were unable to avert.
In Chronicles it is said that, in consequence of his sin, M. was taken by the Assyrians in fetters to Babylon (2 Ch 33"), There he humbled himself before God, and was restored to his kingdom, whereupon he cleansed Jerus. and the temple of idols, and strengthened the fortifications of the city (v.%"-), The silence of Kings is very strong evidence against the story; for if M. had been really taken into captivity, repented, and on his return sought to undo the evil he had wrought, the writer in Kings would not have left the im- pression of unbroken idolatry and sin. (Contrast the case of Ahab, 1 Καὶ 21°). That the Assyrians should have taken a prisoner to Babylon is not in itself very suspicious. But the mention of it prob- ably gives a clue to the origin of the story. The Bab. exile was traced by the prophets to the sin of
230 MANASSEH
MANASSEH
M., and the Chronicler would feel it a fit thing that the author of this calamity should himself experience a captivity in Babylon. Tliere was this turther reason for the story. The long and peace- ful reign of so wicked a king called for explana- tion. And this was accounted for by the story of his penitence and reformation. It is a char- acteristic example of the Chronicler’s method of rewriting history. See, further, Driver in Hogarth’s Author. and Archeol. pp. 114-116, where the archeological data bearing on the question are fully discussed, and the conclusion is reached that while the inscriptions do not decide the question, they fail to neutralize the suspicions attaching to the Chronicler’s narrative.
2. Manasseh in Jg 1880 is a correction for Moses, since it seemed derogatory to the reputation of the latter that his grandson should have been the first priest at thesanctuary of Dan. The correction was made by inserting the letter 1 above the line, thus changing the word into Manasseh (cf. Moore, ad/oc.). 3. 4. Two contemporaries of Ezra who had married foreign wives (Ezr 1039. *), 5, See next article.
A. 5. PEAKE.
MANASSEH (n2'3>,—according to the etymology given in Gn 4151, ‘making to forget,’ from ¥3 ‘ to forget’; LXX usually Μανασσῆ), the elder son of the patriarch Joseph by his Egyptian wife, Asenath, and also the name of the tribe reputed to be descended from him. Of Manasseh as the son of Joseph, nothing more is stated than what is recorded in Gn 48, where Jacob (1) blesses his two τε Πα ϑοτα, giving Ephraim, against their father’s desire, the first place (νν.} 5 8:39. JE), and (2) adopts them, placing each on the same level with his own sons (vv.27 P). Both these transactions have mani- festly a tribal significance; they are traditional explanations of the relations existing subsequently hetween the two tribes Manasseh and Ephraim themselves, and between these two and the other tribes. In Gn 5038 10 is also stated that the children of MAcurr, the son of Manasseh, were ‘ born upon Joseph’s knees,’ i.e. he survived their birth, and was able to recognize them as his descendants (cf. 30°; Odyss. xix. 401; Stade, ZA W, 1886, 146 f.).
Manasseh as a tribe is, however, more important than Manasseh as an individual. i. History of the tribe. All that the oldest tradition of the Exodus (JE) says about the tribe is, that after Moses had allotted inheritances on the E. of Jordan to Reuben and Gad (Nu 382), particular families of Manasseh took possession of districts in the same neighbourhood,—the children of Machir, the (eldest) son of Manasseh, occupying Gilead generally, Jair, ‘son’ (.6. descendant) of Manasseh, occupying the district in it called after- wards HAVVOTH-JATIR (which see), and Nobah occupying Kenath, with its ‘daughters,’ or de- pendent villages, νν. 88. 41. #.* The oldest parts of the Hex. thus recognize only two trans-Jordanic tribes as receiving their territories from Moses : + different Manassite clans conquer territories N. of these for themselves. Whether these state- ments, exactly as they stand, are historical, is doubtful: it is remarkable that in Jg 10*° the ‘tent-villages of Jair’ are represented as deriving their name from Jair, a Gileadite, who was one of the Judges : hence it is very probable that the con- quest of Jair is ante-dated in Nu 82; and in fact,